DLLR's Unemployment Insurance Appeals

The provisions dealing with discharge are located in Sections 8-1002 and 8-1003 of the Labor and
Employment Article of the Maryland Annotated Code.

The intent of unemployment benefits is to protect workers and their
families from involuntary unemployment. Fino v. Maryland
Employment Security Board, 218 Md. 504, 147 A.2d 738 (1959).
If a claimant is discharged for reasons which do not constitute
misconduct, no penalty will be applied against the claimant's
unemployment insurance benefits. However, if a claimant
is found to be discharged for simple misconduct, gross
misconduct or aggravated misconduct, benefits will be delayed or denied.

If a claimant is discharged for simple misconduct within the meaning
of Section 8-1003, a penalty consisting of a delay of
payments for five to ten weeks is imposed. The duration
of the penalty period is discretionary with the fact finder.
Once the penalty period expires, the claimant may still
be eligible for the full amount of unemployment insurance
benefits available under the law.

If the claimant is discharged for gross misconduct under Section 8-1002,
the claimant will be disqualified until he becomes reemployed,
earns at least 20 times his weekly benefit amount in covered
employment and thereafter becomes unemployed through no fault of his own.

In 1992, the legislature enacted Section 8-1002.1 which defined
aggravated misconduct. The law became effective on January
1, 1993. Under this section, as enacted at that time,
if a claimant was discharged for aggravated misconduct,
the duration of the disqualification was the same as it
is under Section 8-1002. However, in addition to this,
the claimant's wages earned from the employer against
whom he committed the aggravated misconduct could not
be used to establish the claimant's weekly benefit amount
in any benefit year. This was the harshest penalty for
misconduct since the wage deletion could effectively bar
a claimant from receiving benefits until he was able to
build up a wage base from subsequent employment.

In 1995, the legislature repealed Section 8-1002.1 and reenacted
it with amendments. Under the new Section 8-1002.1, if
a claimant is discharged for aggravated misconduct, he
will be disqualified until he becomes reemployed, earns
at least 30 times his weekly benefit amount in covered
employment and thereafter becomes unemployed through no
fault of his own. However, the claimant's wages earned
from the employer against whom he committed aggravated
misconduct will no longer be deleted from the claimant's
wages used to establish his weekly benefit amount. The
amendment to Section 8-1002.1 applies to all new claims
filed on or after October 1, 1995.

Effective March 1, 2011, the penalties for misconduct and gross misconduct were increased. The
penalty for misconduct was raised from 5-10 to 10-15 weeks. The penalty for gross misconduct was
raised from having to earn 20 times the claimant's weekly benefit amount to 25 times. See, Maryland
Code Annotated., Labor and Employment Article Section 8-1002.

Discharge - Sections 8-1002, 8-1002.1, 8-1003

I. What is a Discharge
Before a penalty can be applied under Sections 8-1002,
8-1002.1 or 8-1003, it must be shown that the employer discharged
or suspended the claimant. In some cases, it is clear that
the employer discharged the claimant, either verbally or
in writing. However, in other cases, the actions and words
of the claimant and employer are unclear and must be interpreted
to determine whether a discharge occurred.

For example, an employee's resignation in lieu of discharge is treated
as a discharge where the employee has no choice but to
resign or be discharged. However, where an employee resigns
in order to avoid facing charges that might result in
a discharge, the resignation is treated as a voluntary
quit under Section 8-1001. A claimant's failure to file
a grievance or appeal a discharge does not convert the
discharge into a voluntary quit. A claimant's acceleration
of the date of departure after being discharged does not
change the discharge into a voluntary quit. Similarly,
an employer's acceleration of the date of a claimant's
resignation, (unless due to intervening acts of misconduct
by the claimant), does not change the claimant's resignation into a discharge.

The loss of an employee's occupational license or the failure to
meet other occupational requirements can be a reason for
separation from employment, but whether the separation
is a discharge or a "constructive voluntary quit" depends
upon the circumstances. Generally, when the claimant voluntarily
or negligently allows himself to become legally unable
to do his job, leaving the employer no choice but to discharge
him, the separation is considered a constructive voluntary
quit. If the employer has a choice about whether or not
to continue the claimant's employment and chooses to separate
the claimant from employment, the separation is considered
a discharge. But see, footnote number 1, page 101.

Where the employer offers employees monetary incentives to accept
early retirement, but the employees would be laid off
whether or not they accepted the incentive, the employees
are considered to be discharged.

If the employer separates an employee from his job during or following
an approved leave of absence, this is considered a discharge.

Finally, when a claimant's assignment for a temporary agency ends,
the claimant is considered to be discharged. The claimant's
decision not to reapply for more assignments does not
create a voluntary quit.

A. What Constitutes a Discharge?

The claimant was discharged for a series of absences and incidents
of tardiness, not all of which were adequately explained.
After filing for unemployment insurance benefits, the
claimant was reinstated through the company grievance
procedure. The fact that the claimant was later reinstated
does not change the fact that the claimant was originally
discharged for absenteeism. The claimant was disqualified
for misconduct under Section 8-1003. Campbell v. Montgomery
Ward, 213-BH-85.

Where, under the terms of the sale of the business, the claimant had
no choice but to leave if he failed to meet certain conditions
to purchase the business, and the employer wanted him
to leave, the claimant's departure is a discharge, but
not for misconduct. Gasch v. AFS, Inc., 3-BR-87.
The claimant, who had a conflict with her supervisor,
returned from her vacation and saw the locks changed,
her desk cleared, her commissions not deposited, and heard
from a coworker that she would be fired. The claimant
correctly concluded that she had been discharged.
Adams v. Fairfax Mortgage Corporation, 119-BH-88.

The claimant was discharged after a telephone conversation during which
she stated her anger at her employer, and the employer
stated to her, "If that's the way you feel, then you might
as well not come in anymore." The claimant's reply of
"Fine," does not make it a quit. Dei Svaldi v. Martin
Taubenfeld, D.D.S., P.A., 1074-BR-88.

A suspension from work for an indefinite duration is a discharge where
the suspension can be ended only upon the payment of money
and where it is also accompanied by the seizure of the
tools by which the employee normally earns his salary.
The claimant was discharged as soon as a suspension under
these circumstances was imposed on him. Gladding v.
Montgomery Ward and Company, 1120-BR-92.

B. Discharge or Quit?

1. In General

The claimant's supervisor told her she would be terminated the following
day. The claimant then offered her resignation in angry
response to this announcement. The employer refused to
allow her to revoke her resignation. The claimant was
discharged, but not for any misconduct or gross misconduct.
Hardy v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 490-BR-87.

The claimant, who submitted a letter of resignation after learning of
her termination, was discharged. The claimant's earlier
verbal communication to coworkers of an intention to resign,
where no such communication was made to the employer,
is not a voluntary quit. Stewart v. Access Enterprises, 230-BR-88.

The claimant was employed pursuant to a written, five-year contract.
As the contract came to an end, neither the claimant nor
the employer discussed extending the contract. The claimant
correctly believed that the employer did not want him
in the position anymore, although the employer did not
communicate this to the claimant. If the claimant had
asked to continue his job, his request would have been
denied. Therefore, the claimant did not quit. He was discharged,
but not for misconduct or gross misconduct connected with
the work. Tenney v. Andrews Food Company, Inc., 153-BR-89.

Where the claimant was hired under the Military Spouse Preferential
Priority Placement Program and then became legally barred
from continuing that job due to the transfer of her spouse,
the claimant did not voluntarily quit her job. She was
discharged for reasons that do not constitute misconduct
within the meaning of Section 8-1003. Holmes v. Department
of the Army, 1175-BR-94.

Where the claimant was told that a new person was replacing
her in her supervisory position and that the claimant
would "have other things to do", she was discharged from
her supervisory position. The claimant lacked the requisite
"intent" to have voluntarily quit her supervisory position.
Accordingly, the claimant was discharged, but not for
gross misconduct or misconduct connected with the work.
NOTE: The employer failed to participate in the
appeal process. Mettle v. Pikesville Nursing-Conva
House of Baltimore County, Inc., 853-BR-01.

2. Resignation in Lieu of Discharge or to Avoid Facing Charges
The claimant resigned in lieu of termination for excessive
absenteeism in the face of warnings. A claimant who resigns
in lieu of discharge does not show the requisite intent
to quit under Allen v. CORE Target City Youth Program,
275 Md. 69, 338 A.2d 237 (1975). In this case, the claimant
was discharged for gross misconduct. Tressler v. Anchor
Motor Freight, 105-BR-83.

A resignation submitted in response to charges which might result in
discharge is a voluntary quit. However, a claimant who
is given the choice of resigning or being discharged and
who subsequently resigns, will be considered as having
been discharged for the purposes of the Maryland Unemployment
Insurance Law. Hickman v. Crown Central Petroleum
Corporation, 873-BR-88.

3. Failure to File Grievance or Appeal
Management personnel conveyed to the claimant that she
was not to report for work anymore, due to her difficulties
in learning the work. This management decision constitutes
a discharge. A discharged employee is under no obligation
to appeal to a higher level of management. Cottman
v. Hill and Sons Management Company, Inc., 725-BR-92.

During the mandatory state police background investigation, the claimant
worked as a security guard on a probationary status. The
claimant was subsequently disapproved by the state police.
The claimant had the right to appeal the disapproval,
but did not do so. He was subsequently discharged. The
claimant's failure to appeal the disapproval is not a
quit. The police permit was denied, and the claimant was
not allowed to work. This is a discharge. Pitts v.
BPS Guard Services, Inc., 1858-BR-92.

4. Claimant Accelerates Time of Discharge
The claimant's acceleration of the date of departure from
employment after being informed of a planned layoff due
to the sale of the business does not constitute a voluntary
quit. Helsel v. Johnson Shell, Inc., 85-BR-84.

The employer informed the claimant that his job would be coming to
an end because the gas station where he worked was to
be sold. The new owners did not approach the claimant
about continuing to work. The claimant then had to give
up his apartment. He was required to give his landlord
30 days' notice, which he did. Subsequently, the employer
asked the claimant to work an extra two weeks, but the
claimant declined because he had to be out of his apartment
before then. The claimant was discharged, but not for
any misconduct or gross misconduct. The claimant's inability
to work the last two weeks was caused directly by the
employer's action informing him that his job was coming
to an end. Terrell v. Settle, 849-BR-89.

5. Employer Accelerates Time of Quit
After incurring a long history of unexcused absences and
tardiness, the claimant submitted a resignation to be
effective in two weeks. During the notice period, the
claimant was away from the work station and became disruptive.
The claimant was discharged prior to the effective date
of the resignation. The termination was not merely an
acceleration of the leaving, but was for intervening violations
of employment rules constituting gross misconduct.
Salisbury v. Levinson and Klein, 395-BH-84.

The claimant submitted a resignation giving two weeks' notice but was
discharged prior to the expiration of the notice period
for an act which did not constitute misconduct. Unlike
the Salisbury case, supra, the claimant was not discharged
for an independent reason. The discharge was primarily
an acceleration of the resignation date. Therefore, the
claimant will be considered to have voluntarily quit under
Section 8-1001 from the effective date of the resignation.
However, the claimant is not disqualified from benefits
during the notice period. Nazarini v. Chesapeake Bay
Seafood House, 294-BR-86.

6. Voluntary Quit or Discharge? See, footnote 1, page 101

a. Loss of Ability to Drive
The claimant in this case could not continue employment because he
failed the required test to obtain his federal commercial
driver's license. There was no misconduct involved in
the claimant failing the test. The claimant's efforts
to prepare himself for the test were reasonable. He failed
the test due to simple inability. The claimant was discharged,
but not for any misconduct. Battle v. Mass Transit
Administration, 41-BR-93.

The claimant, a diabetic, was discharged due to a mandatory requirement
that truck drivers are not legally allowed to drive if
they take insulin. The claimant's medical condition was
not the result of any action on the claimant's part, but
due to a disease which the claimant could not control.
The claimant did not voluntarily quit, nor did he have
any of the necessary elements to show that he "constructively"
quit. Therefore, the hearing examiner's finding that the
claimant voluntarily quit with valid circumstances is
an error of law. The claimant was discharged, but not
for any misconduct. Styron v. Baltimore International
Warehouse Company, Inc., 1738-BR-95.

b. Failure to Meet Occupational Requirements

(1) Security Clearance
The claimant was required to have a top secret clearance
in order to keep his job. The claimant had a duty to his
employer to conduct himself in such a way as to maintain
his security clearance. To the extent that the claimant
lost his clearance due to circumstances beyond his control,
the loss of the clearance cannot be considered misconduct.
However, culpable conduct leading to the loss of his clearance
was misconduct. Davis v. National Security Agency, 853-BR-92.

(2) Required Courses/Certification
The claimant schoolteacher was separated from her job
after failing to obtain the six college credits necessary
to maintain her certification. Although the claimant took
courses in good faith, she failed to accrue the required
credits due to a billing dispute. No penalty under either
Section 8-1001 or Section 8-1003 is imposed, since the
claimant made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements.
Abraham v. Prince George's County Public Schools, 487-BH-85.

(3) Work VisaA claimant who was less than diligent in renewing his
work visa prior to its expiration date despite reminders
from his employer was found to have been discharged for
misconduct. Senatus v. Perdue Farms, Inc., 01156-BR-99 (1999).

7. Retirement Incentives
The employer planned to lay off a definite number of employees
and eliminate their jobs. Rather than make an arbitrary
decision on its own, the employer offered employees monetary
inducements to encourage them to voluntarily accept a layoff.
However, these employees really did not have a choice. In
all three cases, their jobs were eliminated. Although they
were given an opportunity to find other jobs in the company,
the reality was that there were very few available, at least
within the local area in which they lived. Furthermore,
the longer an employee stayed on and thought about the inducement
package, the less money he would receive. Each employee
knew that he would eventually be laid off, with or without
the inducement package. This is a discharge. Bishop,
et al. v. Digital Equipment Corporation, 270-BH-91.

The employer was attempting to downsize the work force. It offered
a special pension package to everyone in the claimant's
department. The claimant also received a further cash
incentive to retire, consisting of a lump sum payment
equal to six months' pay. The claimant, fearing an additional
layoff and a subsequent withdrawal of the incentive package,
decided to accept the package and take early retirement.
The claimant's fears of imminent layoff and withdrawal
of the incentive package were justified. There was no
evidence of any misconduct on the claimant's part. The
claimant was discharged, but not for any misconduct under
Section 8-1002 or 8-1003. Lewis v. AT&T Communications, Inc., 426-BR-91.

C. Leave of Absence
A claimant who is replaced while out on a medical leave
of absence is discharged, but not for misconduct or gross
misconduct. Vathes v. Wareheim Air Brakes, Inc., 366-SE-87.

Upon returning from a leave of absence requested by the employer, the
claimant was handed a letter of resignation and asked
to sign it. The claimant signed the letter because he
knew that if he did not sign it, he would be fired. The
employer proved no misconduct of any kind on the claimant's
part. The claimant had no intent to resign. The claimant
was discharged, but not for any misconduct or gross misconduct.
Cox v. B. Green and Company, Inc., 957-BH-89.

Being placed on an involuntary, unpaid leave of absence due to a medical
disability is the full equivalent of a discharge, for
unemployment insurance purposes. Tillery v. Maryland
News Distribution Company, 812-BR-92.

The claimant's being placed on an involuntary, unpaid medical leave of
absence due to the claimant's stress, anxiety and depression
was the full equivalent of a discharge, but not for any
type of misconduct. The Board applied Tillery v. Maryland
News Distribution Company (812-BR-92) in deciding
this case. Faulconer v. Maryland Nat'l Captl Pk & Plnng, 446-BR-00 (2000).

D. Discharge from a Temporary Agency
The claimant signed up with a temporary agency because
it was the only way to obtain a long-term job. The claimant
in fact was referred by the temporary agency to a clerk-typist
position which she held for four years, until she was
discharged through no fault of her own. Since the claimant's
original intent was not to obtain temporary work and since
the other positions offered by the temporary agency were
not substantially equivalent to the prior long-term job,
the claimant did not voluntarily separate herself from
the temporary agency. The claimant was discharged but
not for misconduct. Davis v. Marge Fox Personnel Services, 576-BR-89.

The claimant worked for a temporary agency from November 6, 1989 to
November 22, 1989, at which time the assignment ended.
The employer attempted to call the claimant with an offer
of a new assignment, but was unable to personally contact
her. The claimant was discharged from her employment.
She became unemployed when her temporary assignment ended
on November 22, 1989. No disqualification was imposed.
Robinson v. SES Temps, Inc., 384-BR-90.

The claimant worked for a temporary agency from October 20, 1989 to
October 26, 1989 when the assignment ended because the
claimant was no longer wanted on the job due to productivity
problems. The temporary agency offered the claimant another
assignment on October 30, 1989, however, the claimant
refused. A claimant who works for a temporary agency does
not voluntarily quit his job when he refuses an assignment
of work. In this case, the claimant's employment ended
due to a lack of work or other reason not related to the
claimant's misconduct and no disqualification was imposed.
Leitzel v. Select Temporary Services, 493-BR-90.

II. Misconduct or Gross Misconduct?
Section 8-1002 defines gross misconduct as (i) a deliberate
and willful disregard of standards of behavior that an employer
has the right to expect and that shows gross indifference
to the employer's interests; or (ii) repeated violations
of employment rules that prove a regular and wanton disregard
of the employee's obligations. Misconduct that does not
fall within the above definition is not gross misconduct.
The definition above also does not include aggravated misconduct.

As stated in Department of Economic & Empl. Dev. v. Jones,
79 Md. App. 531, 535-536, 558 A.2d 739 (1989), "There
are no hard and fast rules to determine what constitutes
deliberate and willful misconduct." In Employment
Security Board v. LeCates, 218 Md. 202, 145 A.2d 840
(1958), the Court of Appeals noted that such a determination
"will vary with each particular case." The Court went
on to state: "Here we 'are not looking simply for substandard
conduct * * * but for a willful or wanton state of mind
accompanying the engaging in substandard conduct. * *
* [T]he wrongness of the conduct must be judged in the
particular employment context. * * * [C]ertain conduct
will be so flagrant that indulging in it will undoubtedly
be misconduct whether or not a specific rule prohibiting
it has been expressly formulated and posted or otherwise
announced to the employees.'" 218 Md. at 208, 145 A.2d.
at 844, quoting Sanders, Disqualification for Unemployment
Insurance, 8 V and. L.Rev. 307, 334 (1955). The Court
concluded that where the claimant's conduct evinced an
utter disregard of an employee's duties and obligations
to the employer and was calculated to disrupt the discipline
and order requisite to the proper management of a company,
a finding of gross misconduct is supported.

The term "misconduct" (other than gross) is undefined in the statute.
Allen v. CORE Target City Youth Program, 275 Md.
69, 338 A.2d 237 (1975). The Court of Appeals stated a
standard for misconduct as follows: " . . . a transgression
of some established rule or policy of the employer, the
commission of a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty,
or a course of wrongful conduct committed by an employee,
within the scope of his employment relationship, during
hours of employment or on the employer's premises."
Rogers v. Radio Shack, 271 Md. 126, 314 A.2d 113 (1974).

Conduct or acts not considered serious enough to be gross misconduct
may be misconduct. However, the term "misconduct" was
not intended to include trivial or inconsequential acts
or comments or isolated lapses in the employee's performance.

A. In General
Termination or layoff due to a lack of work or job abolishment
is a discharge, but not for misconduct. Stevens v. Harford
County Schools, 13-BR-82.

A claimant's misconduct is not mitigated by the alleged fact that others
also committed misconduct. Griffith v. State Employees'
Credit Union, 374-SE-92.

Where an employer discharges a claimant for a variety of actions
alleged to constitute misconduct, but where some of these
actions were not proven or cannot be considered as misconduct,
the remaining actions should be considered, and if they
amount to misconduct, the claimant was discharged for
misconduct. Edmonds v. Anne Arundel County Government,
1476-BH-92.

Even though a claimant is discharged in the heat of anger, the reasons
for the discharge, if they can be articulated, should
be examined to determine whether they amount to misconduct.
Allen v. Sentinel Newspapers, 155-BR-93.

B. Intent or Willfulness

1. Gross Misconduct Found
Absent medical evidence to support the claimant's allegations
that his excessive tardiness was the result of a mental
or emotional illness beyond his control, and in light of
the claimant's contradictory testimony that he suffered
from no illness which affected his work performance, a finding
of gross misconduct is supported. Johnson v. Baltimore
City Health Department, 1031-BH-85.

2. Misconduct Found
The claimant bypassed one part of her duties, resulting
in a customer's premises being unprotected by the alarm
system for one night. This was misconduct. Without sufficient
evidence of a willful and wanton disregard of her obligations
or a gross indifference to the employer's interest, there
can be no finding of gross misconduct. Lehman v. Baker
Protective Services, Inc., 221-BR-89.

Where the claimant's continued lateness, in the face of warnings,
was due to the needs of her child, who suffered from mental
retardation, the claimant did not have the requisite willful
intent or disregard for the employer's needs to support
a finding a gross misconduct. However, since the claimant
regularly violated the employer's attendance policy, her
actions rose to the level of simple misconduct. Bush
v. Becton Dickinson and Company, 2084-BR-94.

3. No Misconduct Found
The claimant was discharged for bizarre, loud and aggressive
behavior which was a side effect of legally prescribed
drugs. The claimant provided medical documentation that
the drugs could have been primarily responsible for the
behavior leading directly to her discharge. No misconduct
was found. Day v. Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, 540-BH-85.

The claimant was employed as a security guard for the Mass Transit
Authority. She was arrested and unable to report to work.
She notified the employer that she could not report to
work for personal reasons. She was discharged due to her
failure to inform the employer that she had been arrested.
The employer required that members of its police force
inform the employer immediately if they are arrested.
The claimant was not a police officer. She reasonably
believed that the rules regarding the police force did
not apply to her. The claimant was later acquitted of
all charges. The claimant's belief that she was not required
to inform the employer of her arrest was reasonable, and
her failure to do so does not amount to misconduct or
gross misconduct. Gilbert v. Mass Transit Administration, 654-BH-91.

Allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace are extremely serious.
However in this case, the claimant, who denied the activity
for which he was discharged, was found to have been discharged
but not for gross misconduct or misconduct connected with
the work. The employer failed to meet its burden of proof
by not presenting witnesses or "victim" testimony which
would support the elements of either "misconduct" or "gross
misconduct". Ingram v. Laurel Fitness & Swim Club, Inc., 02290-BR-96 (1996).

C. Misunderstandings
The claimant did not refuse to perform an assignment, but
merely asked for assistance. The employer misunderstood
and discharged the claimant for refusing to work. There
was no misconduct. Duncan v. Grossman's, Inc., 661-BR-88.

The claimant was discharged because he allegedly took an unauthorized
vacation. However, at the time the claimant took off from
work, he honestly believed that he was on an authorized
vacation leave. He had accumulated vacation leave and
his belief that his vacation was authorized was reasonable.
The misunderstanding between the claimant and the employer
was due to a miscommunication. The claimant's actions
did not amount to misconduct or gross misconduct.
Sims v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 655-BH-91.

D. Isolated Incidents
The claimant's one mistake, which occurred after he had
worked only 31 days, was not misconduct. An instantaneous
lapse in the performance of job duties does not constitute
misconduct. Proctor v. Atlas Pontiac, 144-BR-87.

The claimant waitress was discharged after she misunderstood the owner's
instruction to her on one occasion. The owner told the
claimant to provide certain customers with free after-dinner
drinks. The claimant misunderstood and did not charge
the customers for their before-dinner drinks. When the
other owner discovered this, he discharged her. This one
slight lapse in the claimant's performance is insufficient
to support a finding of misconduct. Gilbert v. Polo Grill, 192-BH-91.

E. Trivial or Inconsequential Act or Comment
The claimant's nondisruptive expression of displeasure
with the working conditions is not misconduct. Forest
v. Tys, Inc., 452-BR-89.

The claimant truck driver was angry with the employer and made an offhand
remark to another driver that he felt like leaving the
truck in Connecticut and going home. The claimant did
not mean this remark as a serious threat, nor was it made
to the employer. The claimant did not abandon his truck,
but when he reported back to work, he was terminated.
The claimant's discharge was not for any misconduct.
Baker v. Quality Suppliers, 1600-BR-93.

F. Cumulative Effect of Incidents
The claimant resigned in lieu of discharge during an extended
probationary period. The claimant's attendance and job
performance were poor, and she had a bad attitude. She
failed to properly notify the employer of absences, reported
late for work and incurred incidents of leave without
pay. Additionally, the claimant failed to maintain work
schedules and files and failed to proofread her correspondence
before sending it out. When she failed to improve during
her extended probationary period, she was asked to resign.
The claimant was discharged for gross misconduct.
Chavis v. Walter P. Carter Center, 767-BH-89.

The claimant was discharged due to his continued practice of arriving
late and leaving early, combined with his failure to follow
proper procedures and his taking of an unauthorized vacation.
This was gross misconduct. Nims v. Bay Fence Company, Inc., 958-BH-89.

The claimant failed to perform the primary duty for which she was hired.
She continued to make and receive personal calls even
after receiving warnings about this. She made long-distance
calls for which she did not reimburse the employer. She
was unproductive and made a lot of errors. She was also
excessively tardy and absent. The claimant was discharged
for gross misconduct. Murphy v. Loiederman Associates, Inc., 4-BR-90.

G. Effect of Warnings and Condonation

1. Warnings
The claimant received two prior warnings for failing to
perform her job duties. The claimant was discharged for
gross misconduct. Haller v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 450-BR-89.

The claimant was discharged because she was allegedly harassing other
employees and also because she discussed personal matters
with customers. There is insufficient evidence of the
first allegation. With respect to the second allegation,
the claimant was encouraged to talk in a friendly manner
with customers, however, talking about extremely personal
matters was inappropriate. This could be misconduct in
some situations, however, it is clear that in this case,
the claimant was never specifically warned about this.
Since the claimant was not told to stop doing this, her
actions were not misconduct. Tates v. Robin George
Davidson, 881-BH-91.

For unemployment insurance law purposes, it is not relevant whether the
claimant was owed more warnings prior to discharge under
the technicalities of the employer's discharge procedures.
Oakley v. Progress Unlimited, Inc., 394-BR-92.

2. Condonation
The claimant missed a great deal of time from work due
to personal problems, and the employer acquiesced to these
absences. The claimant was later discharged for excessive
absenteeism. Since the employer acquiesced to the claimant's
conduct, it cannot be considered simple or gross misconduct
within the meaning of Sections 8-1002 or 8-1003. Cortez
v. American Cooperage and Steel Drum, 765-BH-84.

The employer repeatedly warned the claimant about his absenteeism,
lateness and failure to properly request leave. Repeated
warnings over a long period of time are the opposite of
condonation. Washington v. Montgomery County Public Schools, 774-BR-92.

H. Discharge Motivated by Discrimination
The employer attempted to transfer and later terminated
the store floor person on the grounds that the employer
wanted a younger person in the sportswear department. Although
the employer had a right to transfer an employee under its
policy, it had no right to transfer or terminate an employee
on the basis of age. There was no misconduct on the part
of the claimant. Ruth v. Epstein's, 1073-BH-81.

The claimant was discharged for the negligent operation of equipment,
insubordination toward a supervisor, refusing to follow
the supervisor's reasonable instruction, leaving his work
station early without permission, and 22 incidents of
lateness within a 90-day period. The claimant failed to
prove that the reasons for the discharge, though objectively
based, were just a pretext for an underlying discriminatory
motive. The discharge was for gross misconduct. Anderson
v. Chem Clear, Inc., 912-BR-87.